175 years after it was founded: US science magazine "Scientific American" recommends voting for the first time

Icon: enlarge

US presidential candidate Biden, according to the US journal "Scientific American": "Fact-based plans to protect our health, our economy and the environment"

Photo: JIM WATSON / AFP

For the first time in its 175-year history, the US science magazine "Scientific American" is making an election recommendation - for the Democratic challenger Joe Biden.

"It's not easy for us," says the editorial for the October issue of the magazine.

However, the evidence and science showed "that Donald Trump did serious harm to the US and its people - because he rejects evidence and science."

The most devastating example of this is the "dishonest and inappropriate" reaction of the US President to the corona pandemic, which has so far cost the lives of more than 190,000 US citizens.

The scientists described Trump's denial of climate change and attacks on the health system as irresponsible.

"So we urge you to vote for Joe Biden, who offers fact-based plans to protect our health, economy and the environment."

According to the magazine, the democratic applicant Biden has a reputation for following data and scientific knowledge.

Trump previously questioned climate research

The editorial appeared just one day after Trump questioned climate research in connection with the devastating forest fires in California, according to the AP news agency.

However, the timing of the publication just one day after Trump's statements was a coincidence, according to editor-in-chief Laura Helmuth.

The president's election campaign team initially did not comment on the magazine's recommendation.

It was founded in 1845 and claims to be the oldest continuously published magazine in the USA.

The monthly magazine therefore reaches ten million people worldwide.

Not the first political statement

In addition to conservative commentators, psychologist Geoffrey Miller also criticized the magazine's decision.

"Scientific American" betrays its 175-year-old principle of non-partisanship "for cheap, short-sighted and opportunistic signaling of virtues," tweeted Miller.

Editor-in-chief Helmuth rejected the criticism, according to AP.

The magazine had already positioned itself against the hydrogen bomb in the 1950s.

In addition, Trump's suitability for the presidency was questioned back in 2016, but Hillary Clinton was not supported at the time.

Icon: The mirror

fek / AFP / AP